Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Deathbattle: Dorn Vs Sarevok!

13»

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    @SionIV Why are your random internet sources more reliable than wikipedia?

  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,686
    edited December 2015

    @SionIV Why are your random internet sources more reliable than wikipedia?

    Because there are videos of the event happening in my source? And there are several links in the first article that seem reliable and share a somewhat similar opinion?

    I always read wikipedia with a bit of doubt.

    And the way that sentence is written, leaves many questions.

    Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of Pikemen , combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knight's armor.

    So mounted knights are ineffective against pikemen, which makes sense as the pikemen kill the horse and the knight won't be able to get up on his feet, when he is on the ground. Then we have crossbowmen on the side whose weapon could penetrate (as mentioned in my earlier post and the videos in my link, does not mean causing severe injuries), and they could penetrate most knight's armor, not all of them.

    I am not saying that he is wrong, I would just like to read a reliable article on why he is right. I find this an interesting subject.

    Sorry for the derailing of the topic.

    Post edited by SionIV on
    Buttercheesesemiticgod
  • YamchaYamcha Member Posts: 478
    Wikipedia is more trustworthy then most random internet sites, blogs or youtube channels. You can find and check the sources in the footnote for more information.

    I can't even tell where I picked up this info, but I'm pretty sure its correct.
    And even if the bolt doesn't pierce the skin, the kinetic energie can knock you unconscious.
    Thats why blunt weapons are also very effective vs. plate armor. They don't make you bleed on the outside but crush your internals.

    It's even in the AD&D ruling:
    http://www.traykon.com/weapons/xbow.php

    FinneousPJGoturalsemiticgodNonnahswriter
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 14,077
    And crossbows don't need to kill armored enemies in order to make that armor useless or a waste of resources. I'd probably want to wear full plate even if there were crossbows around if it might stop a few of them. But if I were a king who wanted to outfit his soldiers, I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay good money to equip my men with armor that was going to get riddled with holes by a group of crossbowmen.

    SionIVButtercheeseNonnahswriter
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,769
    Yamcha said:

    Excerpt from Wikipedia's Crossbow article:

    ...Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor horses...

    Fixed.

    SionIVsemiticgod
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,656
    Vitor said:

    elminster said:

    Vitor said:


    Also, when you face Balthazar, he said that when a bhalspawn is killed, all the other bhalspawns get stronger. And, when you face Bhaltazar, it is stated that Charname and Balthazar are at the same league in terms of "Bhaal's power" at that momment.

    Not sure where you are getting this from but he doesn't say this.
    I'm sure it is stated this in the game. Now I don't recall if it's in the talk with Balthazar, or talking with the Solar, in the pocket plane, before going to fight Balthazar.
    When you kill the bhaalspawn, all their essence returns to a pool in bhaals realm, the others don't get stronger, or you wouldn't have needed to fight the priestess who kept absorbing the essencr of bhall at the end of the game.

    VitorGallowglass
  • YamchaYamcha Member Posts: 478
    Here's another wiki (from the horse warfare article)

    However, some historians attribute the demise of the knight to the invention of gunpowder,[146] or to the English longbow.[147] Some link the decline to both technologies.[148] Others argue these technologies actually contributed to the development of knights: plate armour was first developed to resist early medieval crossbow bolts,[149] and the full harness worn by the early 15th century developed to resist longbow arrows.[150] From the 14th century on, most plate was made from hardened steel, which resisted early musket ammunition

    10 historians, 11 opinions.

    SionIVButtercheesesemiticgod
  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,686
    Yamcha said:

    Here's another wiki (from the horse warfare article)

    However, some historians attribute the demise of the knight to the invention of gunpowder,[146] or to the English longbow.[147] Some link the decline to both technologies.[148] Others argue these technologies actually contributed to the development of knights: plate armour was first developed to resist early medieval crossbow bolts,[149] and the full harness worn by the early 15th century developed to resist longbow arrows.[150] From the 14th century on, most plate was made from hardened steel, which resisted early musket ammunition

    10 historians, 11 opinions.

    So the plate armor resisted Arrows and Bolts, even some Bullets?

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,295
    more advanced plate armor resisted arrows but it didn't resist bolts on the battlefield, which were fired from pretty heavy crossbows (those cranked ones)

    semiticgod
Sign In or Register to comment.